Wells v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts Judge Hendricks's Report and Recommendation and affirms the ALJ's decision. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 09/03/2013. (egra, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Brenda Diane Wells,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner
)
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
1
Defendant. )

C/A No. 2:12-1330-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her claim for Social
Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under the Social Security Act (the "Act"). This
matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
(“Report") recommending that this court affirm the Commissioner’s decision. (ECF No. 20).2
Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report (ECF No. 21), and the Commissioner filed a response
to Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 24). For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts the Report,
and affirms the decision of the Commissioner.
I. Procedural Background
On July 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB due to mild osteoarthritis, migraines,

1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.25(d), Colvin should be
substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the Defendant in this action
2

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling.

and degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine with an alleged disability onset date of January
31, 2009. Her application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. An Administrative Law
Judge ("ALJ") conducted a hearing and on March 23, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision finding
Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Plaintiff sought review of her case by the
Appeals Council, which was denied. Plaintiff filed this action on May 21, 2012. In her Report, the
magistrate judge to whom this matter was referred recommended that the Commissioner's decision
be affirmed.
II. Standard of Review
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination
of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter
to him with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme established by the Social
Security Act is a limited one. Section 405(g) of the Act provides, "the findings of the Commissioner
of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . . 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial evidence has been defined . . . as more than a scintilla, but less than
a preponderance." Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964). This standard
precludes a de novo review of the factual circumstances that substitutes the court's findings for those
of the Commissioner. Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir. 1971). The court must uphold the

2

Commissioner's decision as long as it is supported by substantial evidence. Blalock v. Richardson,
483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972). "From this it does not follow, however, that the findings of the
administrative agency are to be mechanically accepted. The statutorily granted right of review
contemplates more than an uncritical rubber stamping of the administrative agency." Flack v.
Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969). "[T]he courts must not abdicate their responsibility to
give careful scrutiny to the whole record to assure that there is a sound foundation for the
[Commissioner's] findings, and that this conclusion is rational." Vitek, 438 F. 2d at 1157-58.
III. Discussion
The magistrate judge recommends that the court affirm the ALJ’s decision because it is
supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff raises two objections to the magistrate judge’s report.
She objects to the magistrate judge findings that the ALJ’s determinations regarding residual
functioning capacity and credibility were supported by substantial evidence.
A. Residual Functional Capacity
Plaintiff contends the magistrate judge erred in finding the ALJ properly assessed her
residual functional capacity (“RFC”). (Objections at 1-2). Specifically, she contends the magistrate
judge erred by finding that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence while also stating
that the ALJ overstated the relevance of certain records and cherry-picked other evidence. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff contends that “the court cannot determine if there is substantial evidence to support the
ALJ’s decision if the court finds that the ALJ cherry picked evidence.” Id. The so-called
cherry-picking of evidence by the ALJ “can be described more neutrally as weighing the evidence.”
White v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272, 284 (6th Cir. 2009). The magistrate judge properly

3

reviewed the entire record in making her determination. Even assuming there is evidence in the
record to support Plaintiff’s argument, there is also substantial evidence in the record to support the
ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC, which is all that is required.
B. Credibility
Plaintiff also contends the ALJ erred in finding the ALJ properly assessed her credibility by
failing to consider the record as a whole. (Objections 5). Specifically, she contends that the
magistrate judge erred in finding that any mischaracterizations or oversights were harmless based
on the ALJ’s overall analysis. (Objections 5-6). She contends that she has identified oversights
in multiple areas, not just one or two. Id. at 6.
To the extent Plaintiff argues that additional evidence weighs against the ALJ's credibility
finding, the argument is unavailing because it is not within the court's province to weigh conflicting
evidence. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1986)(stating that the court may not
“undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its]
judgment for that of the [Commissioner]”); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990)
(holding that it is the ALJ's responsibility, not the court's, to determine the weight of evidence and
resolve conflicts of evidence); Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1973)(holding even
if the court disagrees with the Commissioner's decision, the court must uphold it if it is supported
by substantial evidence). Reviewing the report, the court agrees with the magistrate judge and finds
that the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s credibility is supported by substantial evidence.
IV. Conclusion
After carefully reviewing the record, the court finds that the magistrate judge's recommended

4

disposition is correct in this case and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Accordingly, the court
adopts the report and affirms the ALJ’s decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
September 3, 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

5